tv Prime News HLN November 3, 2009 4:10am-5:00am EST
>> okay. has the department asked for t%? >> we've gone to omb for it, but it's in discussions and the secretary has never signed a letter out nor am i probably brave enough to do that right now at this point, but the answer to that is no. we haven't signed something out like that. >> to say something? >> yeah, i wanted to add that the recommendations are directed at the heads of all three agencies. that to us was where it should start, the head of the agencies. really what we're talking about here is, we just don't want providing information into a database because congress asked them to. and i'm not talking about d.o.d. here so much, but i really think that for all agencies to really take this and make it real inçó terms of how they manage the contractors, the fact that they're not inputting the information suggests to me that maybe they don't quite buy the importance of it. >> the need to have the -- if
the law didn't say anything, the managers at state and a.i.d. would still need the information, right? >> i think this is important information. and i think that d.o.d., you know, gets it in the sense that they started with it before this m.o.u. came out. >> to their credit, much to their credit. >> let me add, there's an addendum to the report. we actually changed our nonconcur -- i believe it's to concur with pretty hard comments. >> concur but disagree. >> you know, there was that give and take. so there's actually another answer coming back. >> okay. it sounds to me -- and i'll wrap up here -- that you made some good recommendations, pretty straightforward. he's trying to get it done and realizes another plan with milestones isn't going to do it, so he needs something else. it seems to me like we're talking past each other. >> we were aimed at the heads of the agency. >> i understand. >> that's as far as we could go with it. >> i understand. okay. thank you very much. >> all right.
we have my fellow co-chair batting cleanup with us here now. commissioner? >> not batting cleanup because these have been excellent questions. and i think informative questions, answers. but firstç?doff, mr. hutton, yo recommendations are very sensible, and i'm struck by the fact that it's hard to disagree with him. you might want to add color to them, but they truly are -- it almost sounds like you've given up when you're not willing to consider just some basic recommendations. and when i asked you, you know, who could have impact, you basically said no one. and then you kind of then said, well, it would help to have the secretary -- and i basically think it's because you don't want to be in a hearing telling the secretary what to do. for that i respectñjr it. so i'll take it under that. but you didn't disagree with mr. hobby saying it would be helpful and so on. i'll tell you the reason why i had this chart up.
it's time lined for spot implementation. and it's made to general mitchell aide stevenson amc. that stands for -- material command, directedhóamc to utilized the web-based spot tool for a 3c mission. anybody know? >> command control. >> okay. so let's go count up one start, two, three, four, five, seven, seven, eight, nine stars. we finally had the business rules published not in october '06 but october 7th, '07. it basically took over two years to move forward to this. now, you know, part of that is, you know, there are a lot of other things on people's plate. but it's hard to convince the real world that d.o.d. is serious and others are serious when we see it takes two years
plus to just even get the business rules published. and i'm struck by -- i'm reactinóhr to your comment whic is really somewhat of a red herring when you talked about the privacy issue. because, you know, names and so on is not to me a privacy issue. but i'm even struck with hell -- heck, if you needed more information, it is a war. and i'm struck by the fact that the critics of this effort in iraq and afghanistan who say we're in a war, but the only ones who really know it are our fighting men and women because everyone back home doesn't seem to get it.ñi and this, to me, is a great illustration of that. and so i think what we're going to try to do as a commission is to try to see if we can shorten that span. and one of the points that mr. irvin suggested is that maybe we should get state and a.i.d. here to say, okay, how are you all going to cooperate? so we're going to try to help
>> so army only. that's one reason. >> it was only for a very small segment of contractors, and those were contractors accompanying support of weapons systems going to the field. and this thing mushroomed through. we did not accept spot. we identified spot right after august -- i mean october 2007. >> except that you resisted it or didn't -- >> no. we were looking for something to do. congress passed such an 854, and we said we've got to come up with something. and it was spot because it was already in an embryonic solution. it was for a very tight group. and we expanded it. >> tell me, when did congress say to come forward? refresh me. >> that was the 2007 ndaa which was published -- actually passed, if i recall, in october. >> so -- >> of 2006 when i came on board. in 30 days we were at gao briefing what our plan was. >> so s.p.o.t. started a year before and you jumped on board -- >> we grabbed it and got d.o.d.,
the defense advisory working group. >> but even then -- but even then, so then what you're saying is october '07 before the rules were published. it just takes a heck of a long time. maybe one of the things our commission has to look at is what should be speeded up during times of war? i mean, you know, we're not looking at all contracting. so there are a lot of things we get into, but we are looking at contingency contracting, wartime contracting. mr. hobby, would you have any comment about this chart?ñi >> as far as the embryonic stage on the chart indicated, we thought that inñhr that time fr of august 2005 before some of the expansion that was going on and the whole of governance idea, the afghan first policy, et cetera, that expanded some of the contract base that centcom now leans heavily on 119,000 contractors in iraq and so forth, that early in that stage,
we'd never -- central command never saw this going to be a one-for-one or a half the forces in the fight. and there's another force that becomes the sustainment that are contractors. >> well, we knew it was pretty high. whether it was one for -- even if it was, youñr know, one for o fighting men and women, we stilñ knew it was a huge issue. >> it was. absolutely. but our systems to acknowledge that to account for that and to manage that to the level of requirement that we now see we have to, we did not. >> well, we know that. we talked about krrchc.o.r.s. we know there is beginning to be a change in culture in the army. p particular, to begin to value those folks that are overseeing contractors within our military so that they potentially, by dealing with contractors, don't get out of the chain to become a flag officer. and so we'reño' seeing some ver good things happen. and we're seeing real efforts to
change a culture which is encouraging. the government oversight committee. and we dealt with contracting. and we have written in laws for contractors that gives them two years before we can lower a price on what they get. we have contractors who, in the space of six months, have fully paid -- we fully paid for something we rented from them and then keep it for another ten years. we have trouble changing that process to give contractors lots and lots of protection. i am beginning to believe that when it comes to contracting overseas, we've got to have a faster process.ñi and to help people like you and have mr. hulten see that abuse will be a lot less than it is today. so i thank all three of you for coming. >> all right. this wraps up the first panel.
i also, for the commission, would like to thank all three of you. you've been candid and very helpful. i'd like to thank each of the commissioners. i'd be remiss if i didn't at least thank at least once and maybe more often the commission staff. an awful lot of where we come from is generated by our staff. so we're going to áuke about five minutes. i don't mean to say this -- oh, thank you. you know, my fellow co-chair missed it last time. i missed it this time. we're even. so we're going to give you a couple minutes before -- each, if you have some comments that you'd like to share with this commission. i apologize. >> i'll be very, very brief..o met me just reiterate point number one. we don't get rid of the census until we're comfortable with the numbers. that's a f@at.ñr number two,ñr as good as having this hearing on s.p.o.t. and as important as it is, it's part of
a larger challenge. that's why i got very uncomfortable when mr. shays was asking me questions because a lot of enablers out there, a lot of other requirements that goes back to a number of contracting officers we have in place, the fact that we haven't gotten that fully solved. it goes back to the fact that we have made some major improvements. jcc, joint contracting command as you know it is about to go out the door and the joint theater support commandhh about to go in place which will help address that. but it's taken us two years to develop the resources to at least marginally increase the jcc and to move the flag so he has more of an area of operation responsibility as opposed to the folk -- pardon me? >> move the flag? >> move the headquarters. the one that supported it. again, if you recall put a general flag reporting to the commander. i've done a terrible job with regards -- and i'm clearly not
convinced you that s.p.o.t. is not a security system and i apologize. i'm sure we'll have a dialogue on further security. it breaks down to two pieces, physical access, logical access. you could argue it helps the logical access part. but from a physical access part, it does not. we were not there in time to even affect it if we wanted to because in 2004, they had to make a decision, and they did so, and they came up with it, and they are modifying them to accommodate me. and i have to say thank you to the defense -- ddre folks who are doing that. my last comment is, and that's the challenge that we're always facing, and it's kind of a catch-all comment, but i think it's very important, is that we try to balance the best that we can effectiveness and efficiency. early on in battle space management, effectiveness is more important as things track on. efficiency starts rising and so the balance changes. but that is our challenges.
mr. carter has mentioned several times, it's that balance. it's not to constipate the person in the field with so much bureaucracy that they cease to be effective. it is our intent to take the burden off the guy in the field with everything we're doing, not to add to his burden. and that's why i keep on summarizing my comments that we're not going to keep the entire manual census in place because it is simply too labor intensive. but it is very important that a person in the battle space can slice and dice this work force, this contractor work force, with basically the same fidelity we slice and dice in the military. we ought to be able to say how many people are located at this particular location? what are the skill sets they're looking at? are we avoiding implicating skill sets, gliduplicating contracts? that's what the objective is and that's what we're going to go to.
thank you. >> mr. hobby? >> thanks to the commissioner again, and i will take back his -- you asked to the commander the criticality of what we've talked about today, the issue of accounting contractors, where are they and what they're doing. thanks also to all of you for your kind words for the deployed force and what they're doing and your acknowledgment of that. thank you for acknowledging that afghanistan is not iraq and knowing the difference and perhaps that's the real heart of why this is so difficult. freedom of movement, access to thejx÷ outlying places, movemenf goods and services on general trucks with mostly afghanistan employees, mostlyçó hired throu tribal vetting that we don't have absolute control over. i appreciate your acknowledgment of that. and finally, thank you for your oversight of contracting. it is a critical enabler for what we're doing and what we will probably do in our future wars. i think what we're doing here is critical. and i appreciate your interest as our extension of the military
here into the national command authority and to our congress. thank you. >> thank you, sir. mr. hutton. >> well, first i want to thank you for inviting gao to this hearing. we always delight in being able to talk through our findings and recommendations. i think s.p.o.t. has potentialç to be a good, useful tool to help not only d.o.d. but other agencies have a better understanding of how they use contractors, for what purpose, to help them better manage and oversee those contractors. gao, as you know, has done a lot of work over the years. and we've been pushing for many of the things that we've been talking about today including the establishment of a position that mr. motsek presently sits in which i think has been a help. maybe we would have liked to have seen it sooner. we're thankful that they have that type of position. >> so he wasn't very grateful. helped create the position and then he doesn't take your recommendation. >> he said he modified them.
>> so he cited me for not doing my job before i had it. >> but anyway, you know, i just think overall, whether it be for planning for future contingency operations, you know, knowing how we use contractors and building that into the plans up front so you have your eyes wide open and a better understanding of how you're going to go the next time is very helpful. i think, again, s.p.o.t. is going to help with the management in oversight, may help address some wastes and abuse and other types of things like that. i'm glad mr. hanke did bring up our particular recommendation because for me, quite frankly, the m.o.u. was just an agreement, but i wanted to see the agencies further along in terms of their embracement of s.p.o.t. i think it takes it back to the requirements, the recognition that it is important to know where you use contractors and for what you're using contractors so you can better
manage them. what we tried to do was find a way to get that buy-in. every agency may have slightly different needs. it may depend on the types of activities contractors are planning. the ones like security forces may have a lot more sensitivity and importance to making sure you know what's going on in theater than perhaps someone that's, you know, working on some offsite 100 miles away from a u.s. installation but helping further the interest with reconstruction and other things. so we think our recommendations are embraced and taking it back to each agency thinking about what's important for managing their contractors, then articulating that and putting it into a good, shared understanding of the requirements as to how things are going to be entered in the s.p.o.t. i think will be further along and that was the intention of our recommendation. but thank you. >> thank you, mr. hutton. thank you all. this hearing will move on with arrival of the next panel.
hand, please? do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give before this commission is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. note for the record that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative. i'd like to introduce all three of you, and then i'll turn it all over to you individually. rear admiral thomas traun, vice director for logistics, what's referred to throughout the military as j4.
with the joint staff representing lieutenant general gainey. mr. william solis withñi the government accountability office, gao. and mr. lee thompson, executive director of the log cap program office in the department of defense. and when it gets to you, lee, you can tell them what logcap stands for. admiral, please start. >> chairman, distinguished members of the commission, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. it is my pleasure to be here. i'm rear admiral tom traaen, w logistics on the joint staff. i advise the chairman of the joint chiefs for the entire spectrum of joint logistics to include reviewing the logistics policies and procedures that are guiding the drawdown strategy in iraq. as well as thel' joint staff l
assume the responsibility of keeping iraq secure for the iraqi people. we are making satisfactory progress towards our overarching goals on the time line laid out by the president. the department of defense has been redeploying significant amounts of forces out of iraq and kuwait for each of the past six years and has been planning for and executing the mandated drawdown of forces from iraq for over a year. the planning and execution have been a coordráed effort among the multinational force iraq, the services, the department of state, central command and its components. the department has directed the departing units to follow a force depth deposition process for drawing down excess supplies and equipment.
to force that process being executed todayñi is to consume, redistribute, transfer and dispose. the responsible drawdown actions taken to date have been accomplished while repainting logistics flexibility to adjust to operational changes in mission requirements. with respect to contractors in iraq, their numbers will continue to decrease. while their numbers will not decrease as quickly as those of the military, the proportionally large contractor presence will be critical to help us close forward-operating bases and redeploy equipment. the ratio of contractors to military has been 1:1 for the past several years, but we predict this will increase to about 1.5:1 by next august. as the forward-operating bases close and equipment is redeployed, that number will start to decrease. these numbers will be :á and there will be a continual decrease in both contractors and military as drawdown progresses.
we recognize throughout the department that maintaining proper accounting and contracting oversight is critical and has been challenging for a variety of reasons. dcma reports the number of officers in iraq on a regular basis. right now 80% -- 86% of the required corps in iraq are in place. compared to 59% at the beginning of the year. additionally, we anticipate the dcma joint manning document will be sourced to approximately 90% fill rate across the centcom area of responsibility. that 90% fill rate covers the spectrum of contract administrative services to include subject matter experts to assist with oversight. as a department, we are committed to ensuring these critical bullets are properly resourced throughout the drawdown and continually reviewing processes to ensure that proper oversight is maintained.
to summarize the drawdown in general, the department is achievingñi logistics unity of effort in executing the president's directive to systematically draw down forces in iraq. we are tracking the drawdown against specific goals and will require whatever policy assistance is required to meet the president's time line. we continue to support fromzlñ congress the department can execute all these required drawdown tasks. no closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the commission. i firmly believe the description of the drawdown as a responsible drawdown is fundamental to this process.çóñi i understand the criticality of good stewardship and property accountability for all of our assets in iraq. therefore, we are diligently tracking drawdown progress against specific goals. at the same time, we are also focused on doing everything within our power and authority to enable the iraqi security force to operate effectively
once the drawdown is complete.çó i'd be happy to answer any questions that you and the members of the commissn may have. >> thank you,ñi admiral. mr. thompson? >> with an update on status of theçó logistics augmentation program better known as logcap. and on the continuing transition from logcap 3 which relies on a single source company to the logcap 4 contract which uses three different performance contractors. both of these contingency contracts enable the army to provide critical support to deploy troops serving on the front lines in iraq and afghanistan. as a logcap executive director, i am responsible for seeing thar the operational force receives all of the services we have contracted for under logcap. this highly complex and challenging program is accomplished by a team made up
of forward-deployed and rear echelon department army civilians, army reserve officers and noncommissioned officersñr officers and civilian employees of the dcma. these hardworking, highly skilled people make up team logcap forward and provide the requirements in contract management oversight of the three performance contractors, kbr. team logcap is further supported by the men and women serving here in the united states for the u.s. army material command and its subordinate kmants the u.s. army contracting command and u.s. army sustainment committee. today i plan to update you on the steps to take to complete the transition from logcap 3 to logcap 4 and to provide you with an understanding of what we in the army are doing to correct shortcomings in logcap that have
been uncovered by internal and external supporting agencies, the aaa, the dodig and dcaa.xd again, i thank you for your continued interest in logcap and to continue the contracting process, and i invite any questions that you may have about these important topics. thank you.ñ >> thank you, mr. thompson. and mr. solis. >> chairman thibault, appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss issues related to the drawdown of u.s. forces from iraq. since we last reported innant '08, the u.s. and iraq have signed a security agreement that includes a time line ol'rok requirements for the drawdown and çv'mnfi has issued a phased plan to achieve complete withdrawal of u.s. forces by the 2011. the drawdown effort has already begun. it is, however, one of several tasks u.s. forces in iraq are
conducting concurrently in a continuously evolving period of iraqi political uncertainty. for example, besides overseeing operations in iraq, ç÷rñimnfi as subordinate headquarters are merging into a single headquarters called united states forces iraq which is scheduled to become operational on january 1st, 2010, and includes a 40% reduction of headquarters personnel. moreover, brigade teams are being reúd#ed by relatively new advise and persist brigades that will focus on training iraqi security forces will capability to conduct full-spectrum operations. finally, although d.o.d. h"+2 reported not only has activity decreased markedly since its highest point in june 2007, the insurgency in iraq continues to remain dangerous. one of the key considerations for drawdown planning is role of contractor personnel to perform a wide range of tasks essential for the drawdown including
repairing military vehicles and providing transportation assets and personnel necessary for the retrograde of equipment. my testimony today will focus on one, the extent to which d.o.d. has planned for the qvj?ñdrawdod factors that mayñr impact the efficient execution of a drawdown with particularñi f'çu on ñicontractor-related issues. since our last report, a number of d.o.d. organizations have issued or refined coordinating plans for the execution of the drawdown within the designated time frame. in support of these plans, processes have been established to monitor the retrograde of equipment from iraq. d.o.d. has reported that efforts to reduce personnel retrograde equipment and closeñi bases hav thus far exceeded targets. however, a large amount of personnel equipment of bases remain to be drawn down, and several unresolved issues may impede effective execution of the drawdown in accordance with the time frames in mnfi's phased
drawdown plan. with regards to the role of management and contractors, we have identified three challenges.ño' first, d.o.d. has not fully identified or gined the additional contracted services it will need to successfully execute the drawdown of support the remaining u.s. forces in iraq. experience has shown that requirements for someñr service such as private security contractors and vehicle maintenance will likely increase during the drawdown. joint guidance calls for planners to/n1 identify contrac support requirements as early as possible to ensure that the military receives contractor support at the right place at the right time and at the right price.ñi however,xd while mnfi's drawdow order anticipates an increased need for contractors, as of july 2009, commanders had not identified the specific types and levels of contract of services they will need during the drawdown. as a result, d.o.d. risks not having the right contractors many place to meet drawdown time
lines and may resort to contracting methods that could cost more and maybe conducive to waste. second, major contracted services in iraq and kuwait including those for base and life support, convoy support and equipment maintenance scheduled tore reawarded nearly simultaneously creating risk for interruption of services. a similar transition from logcap 3 to loe logcap 4 led to some service interruptions due to transfer to the new contractor, a lack of experienced personnel to perform specific tasks such as operatingñi certain machiner and badging issues. contract management officials believe these issues like -- arñ likely to be magnified in the planned transition in iraq. in addition, the upcoming logcap transition in iraq willñ potentially increase contract management responsibilities of combat forces who are required to provide feedback on contractor performance.
increasing the number of contracts providing base support and other services in iraq may complicate commanders' ability to attain essential services as there will no longer be a program manager but a single program manager for the commanders to have in iraq with. third, d.o.d.'s longstanding challengj to provide adequate number of trained oversight personnel in deployed locations will continue to be challenged by the department as it proceeds through the drawdown. d.o.d. officials at all levels have expressed concern about the department's ability to require the appropriate number of personnel. for example, 32 personnel providing oversight for more than 3,000 contractor personnel anticipates doublingño' in its contractor work force but is not anticipating an increase in oversight personnel. without adequate, dncht o.d. risks receiving the quality it
needs to meet the goals of the drawdown. quickly, our work has also identified three challenges related to the retrograde of equipment. first, the execution of drawdowns depends upon key decisions over the disposition of ñ&requipment. second, longstanding information, technology weaknesses may compromise the timely retrograde of equipment. and third, the draw down may also be affected by accurate inventory of three broad types of equipment including contractor-required property. this concludes my statement. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. solis. i'm a good example, mr. thompson, why it's okay not to push the button right away. because i don't do this often enough also to have that down. i only have -- first of all, i'm going to try to stay within the boundaries of my time this time. so i thank the three of you for doing likewise. and we'll push this on to our third panel and try to regroup a little. not a lot.
and i really have only two related lines of questioning. first of all, i'd like to thank, again, the general accountability office, gao, for its leadership in the oversight. and you're number two. i think if i get this right, is the first area i'd like to discuss which is the transition and the challenges of the transition from logcap 3 to logcap 4. and you talked about potential service interruptions. i have a note here that kind of put my words into -- or my thoughts into words. this came from -- we have a team in iraq right now. and one of their tasks, primary tasks, is looking at the drawdown. and part of going through that is to listen to all the players and receive the note early this morning. i wasn't at work because the time's upside down. but i'd like to read part of the note by our team leader. it says briefly we met with dcma
you're managing the transition in light of the drawdown. mr. thompson? >> as aviator, i'll push the button, then talk. can you hear me, sir? number one, we are managing the drawdown. where logcap provides services. we're in close working relationship with mnfi in drawing up the plans to do ñhuc. it's true, we are competing. in fact, we are evaluating one of our two task orders or three task orders, if you will. that being the first one is the core logistics support services. which takes care of the wrench turning, supply support
activities, direct support, maintenance support. we augment predominant ly the d.o.c. then the order is postal. theater transportation mission and the air terminal. the way we're approaching this is not to interfere with the drawdown particularly with the transportation mission. so the thought process, once the contract is awarded, without protests and it goes on as scheduled, we should begin transitioning the buildup first, and that means with the incumbent contractor, if they lose and the winning -- incoming performance contractor to get the protocols that we learned lessons in kuwait, and we learned our lesson -- are learning our lessons in afghanistan. as we move to iraq. so the first order of business is to start to transition the core logistic< and the whole task order is core
logistics, transportation, postal, our folks like to call it ctp. we'll start with the cls and move -- >> and you push this on? >> yeah. >> thanks, lee. >> we'll move to then the theater transportation mission last. in between postal, we will not start that until after february because of the christmas rush. then we'll do the air terminals as we can. so the transportation mission will be later. the base life support contract is not scheduled to be awarded till march. and then we'll do that as the preponderance of the drawdown occurs so we don't interfere. >> you know, i hear you saying the timing of three to four or retaining three, and yet i hear a note where our commission staff was briefed by the folks on the ground, both from your
organization and the dcma two critical components that there isn't that awareness of what you just explained. so i'mñ&r not looking for you t say, well, there ought to be or whatever. i'm bringing that out because i think this -- and i think you'll get more exploration as we go along, mr. thompson. i would like to switch over to my second item because i am trying to manage my time. and as i said with the last group, any of you will be able to provide any other comments. on monday past, october 26th, and this is going to be for you, mr. thompson. dcaa, defense contract audit agency, very related to the drawdown, very unplanned, issued a very substantial report stating that the logcap fi contract, or kbr, wasn't organized in a manner to take advantage and to identify and to
coordinate with the government the opportunity to reduce staff where they believe staff ought to be reduced. and i'm simplifying it, but it's accurate. they made an initial estimate that vín with a leeway factor of january to get in thing fact found -- and that's going to be my question and set up -- that it will be almostñi $200 millio $193 million their number using their estimate process that could be avoided by the company having a staffing model developing and coordinating that with a customer. now, i've read the report, as i know you have. it's very important. i know you take it serious. but they basically say that the company has told them that they're doing everything the contracting officer tells them to do. and relative to adjustments. now, my question -- my feeling is that's half of it. and the other half is we've had
hearings that companies ought to be really proactive. and i guess my question to you is realizing it's only been a week but realizing it's important, what are you going to do about taking a look at this report? >> thank you. you're right. i was in korea when the report came out, read it. my supporting activity, the rock island contracting center, is analyzing it. my first look at it, there are things not considered in that arrest. there's our requirement to up the numbers of the master electricians. so looking just at those two little things, looking at it and saying, okay, we need to get behind the numbers, where do they get the numbers? and it is a point in time these things go on. the third thing, we don't provide support of the entire theater. so there are bases and numbers of d.o.d., military and
contractor personnel that we support. so rather than roll it up, i think we need to get behind the to the rock island contracting center's analysis, and we'll answer appropriately. >> very quickly. the timing is something that's important? is it more or less immediate? at the highest level possible on your radar? >> right. the director for the rock island be -- it is an immediate issue. >> thank you. i'm going to defer. there may be other questions. commissioner? >> yes. first, admiral traan, i noticed on page 3 of your testimony you said that there will be a proportionately larger contractor presence. now, gao -- d.o.d. rather hasn't fully said of its need for contractor services. so how are you planning to oversee this? you'll have more contractors,
you already have fewer than you have right now. the proportion is going to go up. could you walk me through your current plans and your timetables and how you plan to address this issue? >> yes, sir. first of all, i think the proportionality is prudent as we close forward-operating bases and operating sites and as the military either resets or repostures in afghanistan. the proportionality issue is not surprising to me. içó think that the number of contractors in terms of measuring that to the plan is moving down significantly faster than centcom had originally planned. and so i think that getting out in front of it is the first part of the plan is to make sure that we're removing capability where we don't need it. certainly i think the centcom plan is to be conditions based. and i think that there is año'
protocol that we would continue to move forward in terms of making sure thatútsere are some outliers -- for example, the elections coming up in the january timeñi frame, counterinsurgency efforts that if we draw down too quickly, we could put that combatant commander in harm's way of not being able to see out the mission. i do believe there is proper planning in terms of the mnfi fusion cell has tasked with fusing synchronizing and integrating this effort. and as a third point, i think having mnfi andçó that fusion cl also combined with the joint logistics procurement support board that is a ñ&rjccia and an mnfi-established board that will properly coordinate and prioritize those efforts as the fourth making sure that drawing down in the concert with those priorities is the proper way to go, sir.
>> let me turn now to mr. thompson. we know the target of a 32% contractor drawdown. i believe that's the number thad admiral ñitraan has in his testimony. but looking at that chart, i guess i'm thrown a little bit. contractors have already declined by 7 -- nearly 18%, but not kbr. in fact, kbr has declined by roughly half. of that 18% number. in the previous panel, and you may have been here when we discussed this, i noted that if a service wasn't completely closed down, then any contractorz7ñ well, not any -- some contractors -- and i guess i should emphasize that. not all would act this way. but some contractors would drag
their feet because the service hasn't closed down. you don't put the people out. you keep charging. could you explain to me why it is that kbr which has been under so much scrutiny from gao, from the i.g., even from this commission, is pulling its people back at half the rate. half the rate. of all other contractors. >> number one, when we talk about consolidation, drawdown of consolidation of bases, drawdown, those services that we provide under logcap are still being performed is a common mistake of rolling up all bases as a single base. there's different sizes of base. so you have the small contingency operation, locations, and that which is a lower brigade size which would be an operation site. they move into our services. the services we contract for are still being provided. there has been a reduction from
when we started -- in fact, the number's around 50,000 today. so we've put a freeze on them. they at kbr cannot hire above a certain limit based on an estimate that was negotiated this past august and september. as we get the guidance from mnfi on what basis we'll close, we'll start moving out contractors. we are, in fact, doing those. we're looking at those critical skills. but remember, the major drawdown starts after the election. so we are watching that. and i'mñr depending upon our dc folks that are doing the floor checks for us. >> so can you say with absolute certainty that kbr has moved expeditiously and, frimpor exam has not moved from one location to another? do you that degree of visibility? given things we heard earl)oñ from one of our co-chairmen,
issues arriving with dining halls and other ño'things. are you absolutely certain kbr is pulling people out as they shou should? >> we will provide oversight, look at those places to make sure there are not excess personnel there. they have to get a blessing from us as we move, and we descope the property if we close a base. wee look at the personnel, whether they're reallocating or realigning them to. so we're looking and scrutinizing. the two offices that said they are against, what they said about overseas. >> can you comment on both these points, one, the adequacy of planning and secondly, the degree of oversight of kbr and the seeming discrepancy between
kbr, logcap 3 and others? >> well, i think in terms of the planning, i mentioned before in my opening statement that there is -- there's a lot of things that are going on with regards to the retrograde of equipment. the one thing that we haven't seen a lowell lot of as planning, for determining the requirements, the oversight for the contracts that are going to be coming on board. and we still have a concern about that.ñiñi we still haven't seen exact plans. as i mentioned to you, the g-mass contract in kuwait which is a major maintenance contract which is necessary to movie equipment out, look at it, move it out to kuwait or whenever it's going to go back to a unit or afghanistan or whatever, they expect a major increase. doubling in size their contract force to about 6,000 people. we have not seen what kinds of plans are going to be put in place to increase the contractor